弘明集 6.66

6.66

周之問曰。苦下之藏即色信矣。斯言也。更恐有不及於即色。容自託以能藏則能藏者廣。或不獨出於厲鄉耳。夫有之為有物知其有。無之為無人識其無。老氏之署有題無出斯域。是吾三宗鄙論。所謂取捨驅馳未有能越其度者也。佛教所以義奪情靈言詭聲律。蓋謂即色非有故擅絕於群家耳。此塗未明在老何續。但紛紛橫沸皆由著有。迕道淪俗茲焉是患。既患由有滯而有性未明。矯有之家因崇無術。有性不明雖則巨蔽然違誰尚靜涉累實微。是道家之所以有裨弘教。前白所謂黃老實雄者也。何舊說皆云老不及聖。若如斯論不得影響於釋宗矣。吾之位老不至乃然。夫大士應世其體無方。或為儒林之宗。或為國師道士。斯經教之成說也。乃至宰官長者咸託身相。何為老生獨非一跡。但未知涉觀淺深品位高下耳。此皆大明未啟權接一方。日月出矣爝火宜廢。無餘既說眾權自寢。足下猶欲抗遺燎於日月之下。明此火與日月寢源。既情崇於日月。又無侮於火本。未知此火本者將為名乎。將或實哉。名而已耶。本道安在。若言欲實之日月為實矣。斯則事盡於一佛不知其道也。通源之旨源與誰通。

Zhou's inquiry: That the man of Kuxia concealed 'right within form' is indeed credible. Yet as for these words, I further fear that he fell short of 'right within form.' If one can claim to have concealed it merely by being able to conceal, then those who can conceal are many; perhaps it is not unique to the village of Lixiang alone. Now, as for existence being existence, things know its existence; as for nonbeing being nonbeing, people recognize its nonbeing. Master Lao's demarcation of existence and inscription of nonbeing do not go beyond this realm. This is what my humble discussion of the three tenets referred to: in their acceptances, rejections, and rushings about, none has ever been able to surpass his measure. The reason Buddhist teachings take away feelings and spirit in their meaning and defy ordinary sounds and rhythms in their words is that they say 'right within form is non-existence,' and thus they stand uniquely beyond all the other schools. If this path is not understood, how can Laozi carry it on? It is merely that turbulent turmoil all arises from attachment to existence; running contrary to the Dao and sinking into the worldly—this is the malady. Since the malady stems from stagnation in existence while the nature of existence is not yet understood, schools that rectify existence consequently extol the arts of nonbeing. Although failing to understand the nature of existence is a great obstruction, in resisting strife and esteeming stillness, their involvement in entanglements is truly slight. This is why the Daoist school lends assistance to spreading the great teaching—what my earlier letter called 'Huang-Lao is truly heroic.' Why did past explanations all say that Laozi did not measure up to the Sage? If it were as in this discussion, he could not even be a shadow or echo of the Shakya school. My appraisal of Laozi does not go that far. Now, when great beings respond to the world, their essence has no fixed orientation: they may act as masters of the Confucian grove, or as national preceptors and Daoist masters. This is an established explanation in the scriptures and teachings. Even high officials and elders all manifest bodily forms; why should Laozi alone not be one such trace? It is only that we do not know the shallowness or depth of his vision, nor the high or low rank of his station. These are all expedient measures to guide a single region before the Great Illumination has risen. When the sun and moon have come forth, the torchlight should be discarded; when the remainderless [nirvāṇa] has been spoken, the various expedients naturally subside. You still wish to hold up a leftover torch beneath the sun and moon, declaring that this fire and the sun and moon have the same source. While in sentiment you revere the sun and moon, you also do not disparage the origin of the fire. I wonder whether this origin of fire is merely a name, or perhaps a reality? If it is merely a name, where does the original Dao lie? If you say you wish to make it real, the sun and moon are the reality; then the matter is exhausted in the one Buddha, and one does not know his Dao. As for the purport of 'penetrating the source,' with whom does the source penetrate?